Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's playing catch-up

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 10, 2008 8:29:27 PM

Intel's Nehalem Desktop Chips to Be Called Core I7

Sumner Lemon, IDG News Service

Sunday, August 10, 2008 12:10 PM PDT

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/149648/intels_nehalem_desktop_chips_to_be_called_core_i7.html

Quote:
The high-end desktop versions of Intel's Nehalem processor family will carry the Core i7 moniker when they are released later this year.

Nehalem, which Intel executives will detail at the upcoming Intel Developer Forum conference in San Francisco, includes multiple processor cores as well as an integrated memory controller hub to improve performance -- a feature that is currently only available on x86 processors from rival Advanced Micro Devices.

The Nehalem chips will be manufactured using Intel's 45-nanometer manufacturing process.

Intel's current processor family is called Core 2, an apparent reference to both the use of multiple cores on these chips and the company's current microarchitecture, which is called Core. The Nehalem family will also use the Core brand, but Intel will drop the numeral two when referring to these chips.

Within the Nehalem family, chips designed for different types of computers will have individual sub-brands, such as the i7 brand that will be attached to the high-end desktop chips, called Core i7, said Ruby Au, a company spokeswoman in Hong Kong.

Other names will be used for Core processors intended for other types of computers, she said.

Nehalem is set to be the principal focus of IDF, much as Centrino Atom was the focus at IDF in Shanghai during April. But senior company executives slated to speak at IDF will also discuss other products, including system-on-chips designed for entertainment devices and an upcoming quad-core mobile processor, Au said.

The quad-core mobile processor was scheduled to be released this month, but Au said the chip is not likely to be released during IDF. "We are just planning to share some additional information about the chip," she said.



---<moderatot edit>---
Please quote and link properly...its a matter of copyright infringment

More about : intel playing catch

a b à CPUs
August 10, 2008 8:40:49 PM

lol. Intel actually had an IMC first.
August 10, 2008 8:47:39 PM

Quote:
flame bait!!!!



lol, yes it is.

I wonder if Intel will will "steal" and incorporate the TLB bug and HT flaws as well
Related resources
August 10, 2008 8:52:54 PM

All too little to late and a failure...AMD will have Deneb, that is backwards compatible with AM2+ Motherboards. Intel requires current Core2 users to replace their whole platform including the use of expensive DDR 3 Memory. Intel will stop overclocking on all but their High-end Chips....Enthusiasts will switch to 45nm AMD black edition CPU's.

Nehalem is a flop! Deneb has already impressed technical experts!

Support the Masters AMD! Evil must not win (Intel)!

AMD4Life!!

--<EDIT>--

It has been exlained to you before, and documented with reliable links by several other posters here that Intel will not "stop overclocking"

If you continue to spread this FUD, you will be banned
a c 123 à CPUs
August 10, 2008 8:56:03 PM

Why is it that the AMD fans tend to post such trash and try to flame bait?

And I think thunderman went off the deep end cuz hes calling AMD his masters now....
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2008 8:59:11 PM

yes way back in the dinosaur days of computing....lol
I'm hoping nehalem will be the biggest thing to hit pcs this decade.
With a quad core you'll see 8 virtual cores! Man that's a site I look forward to seeing....
Hopefully the ht will do good things for the processor.
I personally don't plan on upgrading till the prices settle, as my E6400 does everything I need it to.
August 10, 2008 9:01:27 PM

Quote:
flame bait!!!!


+1
August 10, 2008 9:10:18 PM

Hilarious thread, I got a good laugh.

enigma067, you look like a complete idiot. As always thunderman, you are right there with him.

I just hope Intel goes easy on AMD, or AMD gets their act together, I really don't want to be bent over on a new CPU.
August 10, 2008 9:17:18 PM

Zorg said:
Hilarious thread, I got a good laugh.

enigma067, you look like a complete idiot. As always thunderman, you are right there with him.

I just hope Intel goes easy on AMD, or AMD gets their act together, I really don't want to be bent over on a new CPU.

can anyone check if he isn't just "with him" but actually "is him", since I don't think there can be too many rabid AMD fans in the world.....
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2008 9:43:09 PM

August 10, 2008 9:58:32 PM

turpit said:

Please quote and link properly...its a matter of copyright infringment

Message edited by turpit on 08-10-2008 at 10:46:14 PM


Turpit, who gets dinged for copyright violations? The poster, or the site...???

Just curious.

Back on topic, I'll wait to see reliable benchmarks before I make judgement, but I think I'm with Zorg on this one. If these chips are as good as preliminary tests seem to show, and Intel prices them competively, AMD may be in even more trouble than they are now. And we consumers don't need ' no AMD'.
a c 123 à CPUs
August 10, 2008 10:03:07 PM

If you opened thundermans fridge you would only se green kool aide....

And if anything I would think the site since the site has money where as the individual doesn't normally.
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
August 10, 2008 10:17:29 PM

croc said:
If these chips are as good as preliminary tests seem to show, and Intel prices them competively, AMD may be in even more trouble than they are now. And we consumers don't need ' no AMD'.


Yeah, we do need AMD. For one thing, they will either invent good stuff that Intel can copy, or they will try new things and fail and Intel will be able to learn and avoid expensive mistakes. Also, without competition, Intel would be able to raise its prices. It would in fact HAVE TO raise prices, because shareholders will demand it.

I saw an article promising that 3 Nehalem CPUs will be released this year, and the cheapest one was priced at $284 IIRC.
August 10, 2008 10:20:19 PM

............................................________........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:,........
.....................,?......................................................\,.....
.................../...........................................................,}....
................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
.............../...................................................,:”........./.....
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\........................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\.......................
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............
August 10, 2008 10:25:56 PM

I am kind of interested in what kind of reliable links have been provided to prove intel will not stop overclocking in their entry and mid level nehalem processors. The only things I could find where a discussion on THF on intel stopping overclocking from fudzilla:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/250245-28-nehalem-mai...

And an article from THG saying Intel would not stop overclocking but providing no technical details at all. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Nehalem,5607.htm...

From my understanding of the new architecture you need an unlocked multiplier to OC it and Intel has proven they only sell unlocked multipliers for ~$1000. The THG article doesn't mention if an unlocked multiplier is needed. From what I have been able to dig up in 20 minutes of searching it appears as though some of thunderman's FUD (the part you are objecting to) may not be FUD and may in fact be reality. The fact that you are threatening a ban surprises and concerns me. But maybe I am totally wrong and couldn't find those reliable links in my 20 minutes of search, so please enlightne me either way. Thanks
August 10, 2008 10:27:31 PM

croc said:
Turpit, who gets dinged for copyright violations? The poster, or the site...???

Just curious.

Back on topic, I'll wait to see reliable benchmarks before I make judgement, but I think I'm with Zorg on this one. If these chips are as good as preliminary tests seem to show, and Intel prices them competively, AMD may be in even more trouble than they are now. And we consumers don't need ' no AMD'.


The site
August 10, 2008 11:05:30 PM

skywalker9952 said:

From my understanding of the new architecture you need an unlocked multiplier to OC it and Intel has proven they only sell unlocked multipliers for ~$1000. The THG article doesn't mention if an unlocked multiplier is needed. From what I have been able to dig up in 20 minutes of searching it appears as though some of thunderman's FUD (the part you are objecting to) may not be FUD and may in fact be reality. The fact that you are threatening a ban surprises and concerns me. But maybe I am totally wrong and couldn't find those reliable links in my 20 minutes of search, so please enlightne me either way. Thanks


You can OC one of these chips without and unlocked multiplier, but it is more difficult to do. People can OC AMD processors just fine even without the unlocked multiplier. A few years back during the socket 939 days it was quite popular to buy and Athlon 64 3000+ and OC it. Back then the only AMD processors that had unlocked multipliers were the FX series chips.

It should be noted however that both processors and chipsets have gotten more complicated since those days. As has been seen in the recent reviews for the SB750 motherboards, it seems that a certain level of adjustability is needed in the chipset as well as the processors in order to OC chips with this type of architecture to a high degree. Intel will almost assuredly need to implement a similar solution on their motherboards if they wish to retain their reputation for designing chips that are good overclockers.


August 10, 2008 11:11:12 PM

outlw6669 said:



LOL, nice; I've never seen that one before.
August 10, 2008 11:15:23 PM



Tool.



enigma067 said:
Intel's Nehalem Desktop Chips to Be Called Core I7

Sumner Lemon, IDG News Service

Sunday, August 10, 2008 12:10 PM PDT

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/149648/intels_nehalem_desktop_chips_to_be_called_core_i7.html

Quote:
The high-end desktop versions of Intel's Nehalem processor family will carry the Core i7 moniker when they are released later this year.

Nehalem, which Intel executives will detail at the upcoming Intel Developer Forum conference in San Francisco, includes multiple processor cores as well as an integrated memory controller hub to improve performance -- a feature that is currently only available on x86 processors from rival Advanced Micro Devices.

The Nehalem chips will be manufactured using Intel's 45-nanometer manufacturing process.

Intel's current processor family is called Core 2, an apparent reference to both the use of multiple cores on these chips and the company's current microarchitecture, which is called Core. The Nehalem family will also use the Core brand, but Intel will drop the numeral two when referring to these chips.

Within the Nehalem family, chips designed for different types of computers will have individual sub-brands, such as the i7 brand that will be attached to the high-end desktop chips, called Core i7, said Ruby Au, a company spokeswoman in Hong Kong.

Other names will be used for Core processors intended for other types of computers, she said.

Nehalem is set to be the principal focus of IDF, much as Centrino Atom was the focus at IDF in Shanghai during April. But senior company executives slated to speak at IDF will also discuss other products, including system-on-chips designed for entertainment devices and an upcoming quad-core mobile processor, Au said.

The quad-core mobile processor was scheduled to be released this month, but Au said the chip is not likely to be released during IDF. "We are just planning to share some additional information about the chip," she said.



---<moderatot edit>---
Please quote and link properly...its a matter of copyright infringment

August 10, 2008 11:20:36 PM

skywalker9952 said:
I am kind of interested in what kind of reliable links have been provided to prove intel will not stop overclocking in their entry and mid level nehalem processors. The only things I could find where a discussion on THF on intel stopping overclocking from fudzilla:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/250245-28-nehalem-mai...

And an article from THG saying Intel would not stop overclocking but providing no technical details at all. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Nehalem,5607.htm...

From my understanding of the new architecture you need an unlocked multiplier to OC it and Intel has proven they only sell unlocked multipliers for ~$1000. The THG article doesn't mention if an unlocked multiplier is needed. From what I have been able to dig up in 20 minutes of searching it appears as though some of thunderman's FUD (the part you are objecting to) may not be FUD and may in fact be reality. The fact that you are threatening a ban surprises and concerns me. But maybe I am totally wrong and couldn't find those reliable links in my 20 minutes of search, so please enlightne me either way. Thanks



go look through the forum
August 10, 2008 11:49:50 PM

well im glad to see moderaters actually cooling flames and stopping fanbois 'facts'. keep it up. (you know we really need more mods.)
August 11, 2008 12:13:23 AM

Over moderation is not what the site is about. Its a free and open site, as much for debating as helping others or passing information.

Whats its not for is corporate shills, liers spamers or advertisers

IRT nehalem, Fudzilla started that rumour about it not overclocking some time ago. At the time the was no information to counter Fuads 'presentation', and as such the position that nehalem couldnt overclock was as valid as the position that it could....and as such it was open to debate. Now, there has been more recent information, including the nehalem demo at computex which Intel openly admited they had overclocked. That Intel itself demoed an overclocked nehalem is incontrovertable. That information has been passed around here, and it had been pointed out to thunderman. For him to continue using the argument when it has been disproved indicates he is either schilling or willfully spreading lies...both of which are violations of TOS.
August 11, 2008 1:01:55 AM

Lol... Some people just don't get it do they?
August 11, 2008 1:25:45 AM

Lol turpit you don't even counter Thundermans argument. He has never claimed that intel would make un-overclockable chips just that they would only let you OC the EE chips. No one on gods green earth would dispute the fact that Nehalem is overclockable, but to suggest that intel would prevent the overclocking of mid and entry level chips seems reasonable. From what I can gather it will be up to Intel as to whether or not they will design a motherboard with overclocking capabilities for a non EE processor. If you have a link to a site that says intel will allow overclocking in entry and mid level nehalems please let me know.

Some of us dont have thousands of $$ to spend on computers. My last computer cost less then one extreme edition chip, so the overclockability of the non EE chips matter.

In case you glazed over the rest of my post I was concerned with non EE Nehalems ability to overclock (as was thunderman). It still seems to me to be in question and therefore a valid position
August 11, 2008 1:31:04 AM

skywalker9952 said:
Lol turpit you don't even counter Thundermans argument. He has never claimed that intel would make un-overclockable chips just that they would only let you OC the EE chips. No one on gods green earth would dispute the fact that Nehalem is overclockable, but to suggest that intel would prevent the overclocking of mid and entry level chips seems reasonable. From what I can gather it will be up to Intel as to whether or not they will design a motherboard with overclocking capabilities for a non EE processor. If you have a link to a site that says intel will allow overclocking in entry and mid level nehalems please let me know.

Some of us dont have thousands of $$ to spend on computers. My last computer cost less then one extreme edition chip, so the overclockability of the non EE chips matter.

In case you glazed over the rest of my post I was concerned with non EE Nehalems ability to overclock (as was thunderman). It still seems to me to be in question and therefore a valid position



That would be because the issue, like so many others, has already been beaten to death in other threads within the forum. In fact, Thunderman himself has been directly "educated" on the subject. As such, to do so yet again would be a waste of time. Further, thundeman already having the correct information, is either deliberatly spreading FUD, trolling, or a shill.

Read the forum
a b à CPUs
August 11, 2008 1:31:56 AM

I wonder if thunderman has AMD stickers on his Huffy Green Machine? :lol: 




1Haplo
August 11, 2008 1:34:12 AM

I doubt it. I dont think they sell those in germany.
August 11, 2008 1:48:58 AM

Ban Thunderman any how. All of his posts he has ever posted is AMD fanboyism. He has never once helped the community. All he does is spread Fud.
August 11, 2008 1:56:32 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
Ban Thunderman any how. All of his posts he has ever posted is AMD fanboyism. He has never once helped the community. All he does is spread Fud.


Nah, he's good for a laugh once in a while, like Epsilon. Now that BM has calmed down some, we need the occasional good laugh.
August 11, 2008 1:56:48 AM

Its the similar argument that occured a while ago, although the subject was BM. The final verdict was that it's not against the TOS to post FUDs, spread FUDs, and use personal opinions as facts.
August 11, 2008 1:58:09 AM

I wasnt consulted on that, and I have %51 of the vote.
August 11, 2008 2:00:58 AM

Yes and Intel has discouraged OCing for a very long time you can only change the multiplier on its Extreme Edition CPU's.... sound familiar ? yeah I remember that from the P4 days (didn't stop anyone I knew from OCing them....)

Of course if the performance is what it looks like on paper, I think OCing would only be for bragging rights anyway....

At any rate I doubt ASUS or DFI will suddenly drop OCing options from there line of Mobo's, if that happened there would be very little differentiation between them and the industry would be poorer for it.
I also do not believe Intel would turn its back on the OC crowd, although I would like to see all chips multiplier unlocked :(  (does it cost more ? I mean honestly why the hell not ?)
August 11, 2008 2:07:48 AM

turpit said:
I wasnt consulted on that, and I have %51 of the vote.


It was before you were a mod ... :kaola: 
August 11, 2008 2:12:33 AM

well there is no proof that intel will restrict or allow oc'ing on there low end processors. i can see it happening and if it does they will lose most of the gaming market. i just thought it was strange that none of the review sites like toms are allowed to overclock the processor but intel is just claiming that its good at overclocking.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Nehalem,5607.htm...

i also noticed in this one they only mentioned Bloomfield being able to oc not Lynnfield or Havendale

im not saying that it will happen but it seems like a small chance

edit:when i think about it if nehelam destroys amd's new processor it will force the gamers in getting nehelam and if most dont oc it will force gamers to spend more money.its a smart move for intel but it will be hated by the consumers
August 11, 2008 2:20:13 AM

Oh FFS would you people read the forum. Lynnfield will overclock. RTFF
August 11, 2008 2:26:53 AM

they won't unlock all the chips because then they could not sell them at 1k each then
August 11, 2008 2:29:52 AM

Quote:
I also do not believe Intel would turn its back on the OC crowd, although I would like to see all chips multiplier unlocked :(  (does it cost more ? I mean honestly why the hell not ?)


It doesn't cost more to produce an unlocked chip... but it can lead to higher RMAs due to people frying their chips by pushing them too far. Of course, overclocking the FSB gives you more performance than overclocking the CPU multiplier anyway... so unless Intel starts locking the FSB... I wouldn't complain too much.
a c 123 à CPUs
August 11, 2008 2:33:35 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
You can OC one of these chips without and unlocked multiplier, but it is more difficult to do. People can OC AMD processors just fine even without the unlocked multiplier. A few years back during the socket 939 days it was quite popular to buy and Athlon 64 3000+ and OC it. Back then the only AMD processors that had unlocked multipliers were the FX series chips.

It should be noted however that both processors and chipsets have gotten more complicated since those days. As has been seen in the recent reviews for the SB750 motherboards, it seems that a certain level of adjustability is needed in the chipset as well as the processors in order to OC chips with this type of architecture to a high degree. Intel will almost assuredly need to implement a similar solution on their motherboards if they wish to retain their reputation for designing chips that are good overclockers.


That article you posted from THG states they asked Intel directly about it and Intel disputed it.

cal8949 said:
well there is no proof that intel will restrict or allow oc'ing on there low end processors. i can see it happening and if it does they will lose most of the gaming market. i just thought it was strange that none of the review sites like toms are allowed to overclock the processor but intel is just claiming that its good at overclocking.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Nehalem,5607.htm...

i also noticed in this one they only mentioned Bloomfield being able to oc not Lynnfield or Havendale

im not saying that it will happen but it seems like a small chance

edit:when i think about it if nehelam destroys amd's new processor it will force the gamers in getting nehelam and if most dont oc it will force gamers to spend more money.its a smart move for intel but it will be hated by the consumers


Intel is of course showing off their high end just like they did with Penryn and like AMD did with Phenom (remember the 3GHz Phenoms?). This is common practice in the CPU industry.

I would doubt Intel would not allow OCing on the lower end. It may be different than it used to be but still the same in a way since the CPU clock is based on a type of MHz and a multiplier. It seems Nehalem will have it set at 133MHz with a much higher multiplier. You can up the 133MHz to say 166MHz but I don't know how well it will be.

As for Intel not allowign THG to OC, its normal practice. They wait till about a month to 2 weeks before release to whoe the CPUs power and get people excited about it.

We of course need to wait and see what happens.
August 11, 2008 2:33:53 AM

turpit said:
Oh FFS would you people read the forum. Lynnfield will overclock. RTFF

don't believe anything you read off forum. because there's little fat 8 year old kids spreading lies all the time. im really not worried about it theirs a possibility of it happening but it will most likely not happen
August 11, 2008 2:40:12 AM

Zoron said:
Quote:
I also do not believe Intel would turn its back on the OC crowd, although I would like to see all chips multiplier unlocked :(  (does it cost more ? I mean honestly why the hell not ?)


It doesn't cost more to produce an unlocked chip... but it can lead to higher RMAs due to people frying their chips by pushing them too far. Of course, overclocking the FSB gives you more performance than overclocking the CPU multiplier anyway... so unless Intel starts locking the FSB... I wouldn't complain too much.


Well the RMA thing I understand, but couldn't that be solved with "By changing the rated multiplier you agree that any damage to this chip is not covered by any warrentee and is the sole responsibility of the buyer" Of course this leaves open a door for the chip pirates... (re branding chips used to be an issue) I guess its a problem with no real nice solution :( 
August 11, 2008 2:40:34 AM

Skywalker, I suggest you carefully read thunderman's posts. Seriously. If you can't see the forest through the trees, then you're blind.

Quote:
All too little to late and a failure...AMD will have Deneb, that is backwards compatible with AM2+ Motherboards. Intel requires current Core2 users to replace their whole platform including the use of expensive DDR 3 Memory. Intel will stop overclocking on all but their High-end Chips....Enthusiasts will switch to 45nm AMD black edition CPU's.

Nehalem is a flop! Deneb has already impressed technical experts!

Support the Masters AMD! Evil must not win (Intel)!


How can you possibly read that and tell me there's even a shred of objectivity in there? That's right, you can't. He's calling Nehalem a flop and it hasn't even been released yet... and with Deneb, it's the exact opposite. Despite the fact that, again, Deneb hasn't been released yet either.

I'm all for objective information concerning both AMD and Intel. However, thunderman hasn't provided any and furthermore, he hasn't presented any sort of links to support his "argument". All he's doing is trolling and trying to start a flame war. That is why he should be banned... not because he supports AMD.

August 11, 2008 2:42:17 AM

Bloomfield will support overclocking.
August 11, 2008 2:44:20 AM

JonathanDeane said:
Well the RMA thing I understand, but couldn't that be solved with "By changing the rated multiplier you agree that any damage to this chip is not covered by any warrentee and is the sole responsibility of the buyer" Of course this leaves open a door for the chip pirates... (re branding chips used to be an issue) I guess its a problem with no real nice solution :( 


I completely forgot about chip pirates... that's probably the reason Intel introduced locked multipliers in the first place. It's easy to fool people when you only sell unboxed OEM chips.
August 11, 2008 3:14:28 AM

cal8949 said:
don't believe anything you read off forum. because there's little fat 8 year old kids spreading lies all the time. im really not worried about it theirs a possibility of it happening but it will most likely not happen



You are quite right. The LINKS however, are not "little fat 8 year old kids spreading lies ".

read the godam forum
August 11, 2008 3:22:31 AM

skywalker9952 said:
Lol turpit you don't even counter Thundermans argument. He has never claimed that intel would make un-overclockable chips just that they would only let you OC the EE chips. No one on gods green earth would dispute the fact that Nehalem is overclockable, but to suggest that intel would prevent the overclocking of mid and entry level chips seems reasonable. From what I can gather it will be up to Intel as to whether or not they will design a motherboard with overclocking capabilities for a non EE processor. If you have a link to a site that says intel will allow overclocking in entry and mid level nehalems please let me know.

Some of us dont have thousands of $$ to spend on computers. My last computer cost less then one extreme edition chip, so the overclockability of the non EE chips matter.

In case you glazed over the rest of my post I was concerned with non EE Nehalems ability to overclock (as was thunderman). It still seems to me to be in question and therefore a valid position



Dude, thunderman is a tool. You are a tool by association if you take him seriously.

There is nothing indicating that you need an EE to OC; that's called FUD, creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
August 11, 2008 4:22:13 AM

I am not defending Thundermans post I am attacking a moderator who threatened a ban due to alleged "FUD" that wasn't really FUD. Thunderman doesn't contribute, is an AMD fanboy and is only good for a laugh. But I think turpit crossed the line and was verging on censorship. He basically said that if you post that Nehalem won't overclock unless you buy a top end extreme edition you are spreading FUD and will be banned. I took strong offense to that for a number of reasons: 1. He threatened to ban someone for saying something bad about Intel. 2. He misrepresented Thundermans argument in the threat to ban. 3. Thunderman is funny, good for comic relief, and shouldn't be banned if he limits the frequency of his posts (one funny AMD comment and out). 4. 3 of the top five posts concerning an anti Intel thread topic where written or edited by turpit. Which suggests he is trying to steer the argument to where he wants it.

One more gripe I have with him is that I asked for some information to clarify the whole EE OC vs Mainstream OCing question. His repeated response was to read the forums. Not posting a link to support his position. I did some searching and could not find anything to support his position. If he has got another thread with this discussion already taken place as a moderator isn't it his responsibility to direct the audience to the already started thread, especially if we looked but are having trouble finding it on our own. Instead he repeats search the forum, three times in fact. So rather then enlighten the tens of us who are totally dragging this thread off topic and redirect as a good moderator, he edits, threatens to ban and cusses at us to read the forums.

So my whole reason for posting was to see if turpit had a valid reason for threatening to ban Thunderman. Instead I was told to "read the godam forum."

This is the first time I thought I saw what appeared to be mod abuse on these forums, I was hoping it wasn't abuse I think I was wrong. But hey of you can throw me a link that proves that Intel will allow mainstream nehalems to be OCed then I would be totally wrong and would apologize for the previous rant.

--edit-- cleaned up some grammar
August 11, 2008 4:39:33 AM

Skywalker: a little friendly reminder: spend a little more time reading, and a little less writing. It goes a long way in getting more familiar with the forum.
August 11, 2008 4:43:52 AM

If you think about it logically... then you would realize that despite locked multipliers, CPUs can still be overclocked. AMD 64s can be overclocked despite their locked multipliers and so can current mainstream processors from Intel. This is already known fact... so you shouldn't require any sort of links to prove anything.

There's nothing out there that proves Intel is going to radically change it's business model. Their extreme edition processors will still have unlocked multipliers and be sold for a premium over their mainstream processors. They may completely disable overclocking on their budget models... but even that isn't a certainty.

Thunderman is nothing but a troll. Trolls are banned on forums all the time. He posts inflammatory statements in the hopes of starting a flame war, not because he's providing any kind of factual information. As I said before, this behaviour constitutes banning on most forums on the net. (Except those set up specifically for flame wars). Turpit's "threat" may have been poorly worded, but he has every right to ban thunderman because of his trolling behaviour.

I can't believe that you actually give any credibility whatsoever to what he posts. It's FUD, it's flamebait and it's total crap. Any person with no personal bias can plainly see that.
August 11, 2008 4:56:25 AM

skywalker9952 said:
I am not defending Thundermans post I am attacking a moderator who threatened a ban due to alleged "FUD" that wasn't really FUD. Thunderman doesn't contribute, is an AMD fanboy and is only good for a laugh. But I think turpit crossed the line and was verging on censorship. He basically said that if you post that Nehalem won't overclock unless you buy a top end extreme edition you are spreading FUD and will be banned. I took strong offense to that for a number of reasons: 1. He threatened to ban someone for saying something bad about Intel. 2. He misrepresented Thundermans argument in the threat to ban. 3. Thunderman is funny, good for comic relief, and shouldn't be banned if he limits the frequency of his posts (one funny AMD comment and out). 4. 3 of the top five posts concerning an anti Intel thread topic where written or edited by turpit. Which suggests he is trying to steer the argument to where he wants it.

One more gripe I have with him is that I asked for some information to clarify the whole EE OC vs Mainstream OCing question. His repeated response was to read the forums. Not posting a link to support his position. I did some searching and could not find anything to support his position. If he has got another thread with this discussion already taken place as a moderator isn't it his responsibility to direct the audience to the already started thread, especially if we looked but are having trouble finding it on our own. Instead he repeats search the forum, three times in fact. So rather then enlighten the tens of us who are totally dragging this thread off topic and redirect as a good moderator, he edits, threatens to ban and cusses at us to read the forums.

So my whole reason for posting was to see if turpit had a valid reason for threatening to ban Thunderman. Instead I was told to "read the godam forum."

This is the first time I thought I saw what appeared to be mod abuse on these forums, I was hoping it wasn't abuse I think I was wrong. But hey of you can throw me a link that proves that Intel will allow mainstream nehalems to be OCed then I would be totally wrong and would apologize for the previous rant.

--edit-- cleaned up some grammar


No, I made a statement that if thunderman continued to promote disproven FUD,which is a violation of TOS, and will be banned. Its that simple.

Now, as far as reading the forums, if you are too lazy to read, that is not my problem. The subject of this particular thread is one that has been discussed through so many threads that Ive lost count. Thundermans FUD is another subject which has been discused so many times Ive lost count. Clearly, you are not interested in reading or studying, and would rather jump blindly into the deep end. That is your prerogative, however, after years of fighting the deteriorating FUD crap on as a poster on THG, I have zero patience for reposting/linking to the work of others, when all anyone has to do is spend a little time reading.

Now, Im sorry that you feel you are so special that you shouldnt have to be botherd with something so trivial as reading. and that your time is so valuable relative to anyone else that you should have information spoon fed to you rather than having to seek it yourself, but this is not a prep school, a nursery or your parents house. This a 'familiy' forum open to everyone, and everyone gets treated the same.

If you dont like it, go elsewhere.
August 11, 2008 5:08:14 AM

Zoron said:
If you think about it logically... then you would realize that despite locked multipliers, CPUs can still be overclocked. AMD 64s can be overclocked despite their locked multipliers and so can current mainstream processors from Intel. This is already known fact... so you shouldn't require any sort of links to prove anything.


I agree. I posted the same thing earlier in the thread but it seems to have been overlooked. Any processor can be overclocked at least to some degree providing that the motherboard manufacturers provide a few knobs to turn in the BIOS. However, as we have seen with the Phenom processors when the processors and chipsets get more complex more knobs are needed than was previously the case. I wouldn't be surprised if the Intel equivalent of AMD's SB750 were only available on the very high end motherboards.

Quote:
Thunderman is nothing but a troll. Trolls are banned on forums all the time. He posts inflammatory statements in the hopes of starting a flame war, not because he's providing any kind of factual information. As I said before, this behaviour constitutes banning on most forums on the net. (Except those set up specifically for flame wars). Turpit's "threat" may have been poorly worded, but he has every right to ban thunderman because of his trolling behaviour.


I agree with you that Thunderman posts a lot of flame bait, but I have to say that Turpit's response has rubbed me the wrong way as well. Posting a warning to a user is all well and good if it's warranted, but was it really necessary for Turpit to edit other users' posts and insert his comments there instead of making a new post? Editing other people's messages just seems a little sketchy to me.
!